Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 11:52:41 -0500 From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: isp@freebsd.com Subject: Re: UUNET vs Netcom Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961222115237.0068f068@etinc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 07:38 PM 12/21/96 -0800, you wrote: >>> > We left UUNET for sprint. UUNET had much better customer service, but >>> > with sprint we rarily need any customer service whereas with UUNET we did >>> > (they dropped alot etc) >>> >>> On the other hand, Sprint seems to have a lot of routing problems... >> >>I dont agree. Sprint is often blamed for routing problems, but most >>problems, when tracerouted etc were at MAE points. And places like >>ftp.cdrom.com no long route thru them etc. > > The routing issues with Sprint seem to have improved a little, but it >wasn't but just a few months ago that the Sprint network flapped so badly >that it was usuable. I think these problems have mostly been isolated and >dealt with (there was a flakey router in Dallas/FW that was lots of trouble, >plus various IOS problems in DC and Stockton). I was very happy when my >ISP here changed to default to MCI rather than Sprint...especially since >MCI had just done some major upgrades that helped things a bunch. > CRL peers with Sprint at the PB-NAP to avoid congestion that Sprint has >at MAE-west (and probably for other reasons, such as load balancing their >own circuits). Last time I looked, MCI peered with Sprint on the west coast >through a dedicated circuit. Aside from this discussion, Netcom (which the orginal question was about) has many points that are severe bottlenecks (like servicing many T1 and 56k customers with a single T1 backbone link)....so you really have to do some reseach on your "distance" from the net with them. They have a tendency to grossly oversell bandwidth which obscures the value of the service you receive. Dennis
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19961222115237.0068f068>